To point out something interesting in this thread, I'm seeing the change of what the term 'reboot' and 're-imagine' mean through the thread. To help matters I'm just going to throw out the definitions and examples just so we're all on the same page with this discussion, and add a couple more that might be relevant here.
Reboot; start over again from the beginning.
Example: The new Star Trek movie. Restarts the entire series from the beginning with a time-travel bit thrown in for good measure to create an alternate Timeline. The Cast, Setting and story are the same, but you have the ability to sculpt your own series.
Reason: Normally done to increase the Fan base and make something more accessible to a wider audience so they don't have to delve into thirty years of back story to enjoy something.
Re-imagine; changing the core principles of something.
Example: Fallout 3. Changes the style of the originals with a completely open world FPS RPG system. You're taking the general setting and changing how you're interacting with the game itself, and also the tone and style of how you're interacting with it, gone is the whimsical tounge in cheek black humor and it's a much grittier and realistic setting.
Reason: Usually the product of the 'hey, I liked the originals, but let's make them better' train of thought. It can work.
Modernization; To bring up to modern standards of Graphics and gameplay.
Example: Doom. The game setting and style are the same, and the only chnages are bringing the game up to date with everything we expect from modern FPS games when it comes to graphics, physics, and story-line.
Reason: People liked the original, so you keep the game the same and just make it better using the better tools you have access to. Duke Nukem is a very prominent example of this train of thought and the pitfalls of it.
Rip off; To buy the rights to something just so you can use the name for recognition.
Example: Starship Troopers. The Book and the Movie have only two things in common, the character names and the Title. Next to nothing about that movie had anything to do with the Book, including moments where you start thinking 'they might actually include that excellent scene here...' and then your hopes are dashed in horrific Hollywood fashion (The knife throwing sequence.)
Reason: A developer, or film maker has such low expectations for their movie, they decide to cash in on a popular and beloved story or film so that they can bolster their own mediocre sales in the short term.
XCOM falls rather firmly in the Rip off category I think, simply because the developers themselves have displayed a total disdain for the original source material in all it's forms. From declaring that Strategy games aren't modern, to dismissing the original setting, gameplay style, the nature of the threat and the time period for it, to including aspects of the original game in positions of pure irrelevance (The Time Units naming of your action points). The Developers wanted to bolster their sales, so they took the X-Com name to gain the attention of a fan base. If you released that game under another title, no-one would have any reason to think it was anything like X-Com. Just like with the Starship Troopers example above. Change the title and the names of the characters and settings, and nobody would think it was related to Robert Hienlien's work.
You take the name of the original story when you know that your're going to be inescapably close to the original and could face claims of copyright infringement. XCOM doesn't have that problem.
Reboot; start over again from the beginning.
Example: The new Star Trek movie. Restarts the entire series from the beginning with a time-travel bit thrown in for good measure to create an alternate Timeline. The Cast, Setting and story are the same, but you have the ability to sculpt your own series.
Reason: Normally done to increase the Fan base and make something more accessible to a wider audience so they don't have to delve into thirty years of back story to enjoy something.
Re-imagine; changing the core principles of something.
Example: Fallout 3. Changes the style of the originals with a completely open world FPS RPG system. You're taking the general setting and changing how you're interacting with the game itself, and also the tone and style of how you're interacting with it, gone is the whimsical tounge in cheek black humor and it's a much grittier and realistic setting.
Reason: Usually the product of the 'hey, I liked the originals, but let's make them better' train of thought. It can work.
Modernization; To bring up to modern standards of Graphics and gameplay.
Example: Doom. The game setting and style are the same, and the only chnages are bringing the game up to date with everything we expect from modern FPS games when it comes to graphics, physics, and story-line.
Reason: People liked the original, so you keep the game the same and just make it better using the better tools you have access to. Duke Nukem is a very prominent example of this train of thought and the pitfalls of it.
Rip off; To buy the rights to something just so you can use the name for recognition.
Example: Starship Troopers. The Book and the Movie have only two things in common, the character names and the Title. Next to nothing about that movie had anything to do with the Book, including moments where you start thinking 'they might actually include that excellent scene here...' and then your hopes are dashed in horrific Hollywood fashion (The knife throwing sequence.)
Reason: A developer, or film maker has such low expectations for their movie, they decide to cash in on a popular and beloved story or film so that they can bolster their own mediocre sales in the short term.
XCOM falls rather firmly in the Rip off category I think, simply because the developers themselves have displayed a total disdain for the original source material in all it's forms. From declaring that Strategy games aren't modern, to dismissing the original setting, gameplay style, the nature of the threat and the time period for it, to including aspects of the original game in positions of pure irrelevance (The Time Units naming of your action points). The Developers wanted to bolster their sales, so they took the X-Com name to gain the attention of a fan base. If you released that game under another title, no-one would have any reason to think it was anything like X-Com. Just like with the Starship Troopers example above. Change the title and the names of the characters and settings, and nobody would think it was related to Robert Hienlien's work.
You take the name of the original story when you know that your're going to be inescapably close to the original and could face claims of copyright infringement. XCOM doesn't have that problem.
